## Facts

- Jarek Molski, a wheelchair user with paraplegia, filed roughly 400 federal lawsuits in California, primarily alleging Title III ADA and related California access-law violations.
- Molski alleged that during a January 25, 2003 visit to the Mandarin Touch Restaurant in Solvang, California, the restroom lacked sufficient clearance for wheelchair access to the toilet and he injured his hand exiting the restroom.
- He also alleged additional accessibility barriers at the restaurant and sought injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and statutory damages under California law.
- Evergreen Dynasty Corp. moved to have Molski declared a vexatious litigant, to require leave of court before he could file future Title III ADA actions in the Central District of California, and to sanction Molski and his counsel (the Frankovich Group).
- The district court reviewed Molski’s litigation history, identified recurring allegations of similar or identical injuries across many suits, and found his filings not credible and brought in bad faith to obtain monetary settlements.
- The district court issued prefiling orders requiring both Molski and the Frankovich Group to obtain leave of court before filing further Title III ADA actions in the Central District of California.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by declaring Molski a vexatious litigant and imposing a prefiling leave-of-court requirement for future Title III ADA cases in the Central District of California.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a similar prefiling requirement on Molski’s counsel, the Frankovich Group, as a sanction.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the prefiling orders against Molski and the Frankovich Group.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion to curb abusive litigation practices.
- The court dismissed the appeal as to certain defendants for lack of appellate jurisdiction, but reached the merits of the prefiling orders as entered against Molski and his counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may issue prefiling orders against vexatious litigants under their inherent authority and the All Writs Act to protect courts and parties from abusive filings.
- Because prefiling restrictions are an extreme remedy, they must be supported by:
  - an adequate record of abusive litigation,
  - substantive findings that the filings are frivolous or harassing, and
  - an order narrowly tailored to address the specific abuse without broadly foreclosing access to the courts.
- Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before entry of a prefiling order.
- Prefiling restrictions may be imposed on counsel when the attorney’s conduct materially contributes to vexatious litigation, so long as the restriction is appropriately limited.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld prefiling review requirements limiting an ADA serial plaintiff and his counsel to filing future Title III ADA cases in the Central District of California only with leave of court, based on a developed record and explicit findings that their repeated filings were frivolous and used to pressure settlements.


Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007)